Health Outcomes

• Mortality, Cancer, Respiratory outcomes

Health Outcome List:

• Mortality
• cancer outcomes
• respiratory outcomes (chronic asthma)

Environmental Agents

List of Environmental Agents:

• Air pollutants (ozone, nitrogen oxides (NO,NO2), sulfur dioxide, diesel exhaust)

Source of Environmental Agents:

• Near and far-source exhaust and transit emissions (vehicle operation emissions or upstream emissions)

Economic Evaluation / Methods and Source

Type:

• Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA)

Cost Measures:

• Resource costs such as vehicle procurement, infrastructure development, and operations (vehicle maintenance, facility maintenance, and fuel)
• greenhouse gas emission damages
• health losses (mortality and morbidity) due to environmental exposures measured as quality adjusted life years (QALYs) or health loss estimates

Potential Cost Measures:

• Health impacts/losses due to impact of ultrafine particles
• quality of life impacts of alternative fuel technologies on noise/odor control
• safety risks
• maintenance failure costs
• health risks to those living near bus depots where diesel buses are often left running throughout the night

Benefits Measures:

• Benefits and QALYs saved by the use of alternative transit fuel technologies relative to conventional diesel

Potential Benefits Measures:

• Benefits measures and reductions in costs related to health impacts/losses due to impact of ultrafine particles
• quality of life impacts of alternative fuel technologies on noise/odor control, maintenance, and other health risks

Location:

• Not available

Models Used:

• GREET model

Models References:

• References cited in publication — GREET model (Wang 1999)

Methods Used:

• The authors analyzed the costs and health benefits associated with the purchase of alternative bus propulsion technologies relative to conventional diesel (CD) engines. The authors — 1) used a series of simplifying assumptions to arrive at first-order estimates for the incremental cost-effectiveness of emission controlled diesel (ECD) and compressed natural gas (CNG) buses relative to CD engines; 2) calculated cost effectiveness using the cost-effectiveness ratio, where the numerator reflects acquisition and operating costs, and the denominator reflects health losses; 3) quantified health impacts using estimated relationships between exposure to particulate matter (PM) and ozone and QALYs lost; 4) evaluated emissions of PM, NOx, and SO2 considering mortality risks from primary and secondary PM exposure and mortality and chronic asthma risks from ozone exposure; 5) estimated exposures to PM and ozone using the "intake fraction" parameter; 6) estimated upstream emissions for CD and CNG using the GREET model; and 7) evaluated vehicle operation emissions generated by transit buses using the central business district (CBD) test cycle.

Sources Used:

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Transportation Research Board; American Cancer Society (1995); National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study (2000); additional sources cited in publication

Economic Citation / Fundings

Citation:

• Cohen JT, Hammitt JK, and Levy JI. Fuels for urban transit buses: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Environmental Science & Technology. 2003. 37; 8.
• Pubmed
• DOI

NIEHS Funding:

• Not available

Other Funding: Not available